Abortion in America: terminating one twin

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/23/pregnancy-reduction-fertility-abortion-america

As Jenny lay on the obstetrician's examination table, she was grateful that the ultrasound technician had turned off the overhead screen. She didn't want to see the two shadows floating inside her. Since making her decision, she had tried hard not to think about them, though she could often think of little else. She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment – and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy foetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny's abdomen, aiming at one of the foetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt.

"Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn't had children already or if we were more financially secure," she said later. "If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn't have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there's a natural order, then you don't want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner – in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me – and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control."

Reproductive medicine, for all its successes, has produced a paradox: in creating life where none seemed possible, doctors often generate more foetuses than they intend. In the mid-1980s, they devised an escape hatch to deal with these mega-pregnancies, terminating all but two or three foetuses to lower the risks to women and the babies they took home. But what began as an intervention for extreme medical circumstances has quietly become an option for women carrying twins. With that, pregnancy reduction shifted from a medical decision to an ethical dilemma.

Jenny's decision to reduce twins to a single foetus was never really in doubt. She and her husband already had primary school-age children. She felt that twins would soak up everything she had to give, leaving nothing for her older children. Even the twins would be robbed because, at best, she could give each one only half of her attention and, she feared, only half of her love. Jenny desperately wanted another child, but not at the risk of becoming a second-rate parent. "This is bad, but it's not anywhere near as bad as neglecting your child or not giving everything you can to the children you have," she said, referring to the reduction. She and her husband intend never to tell anyone about it. Jenny is certain that no one, not even her closest friends, would understand.

[TwilightGardener]

1. That's a decision I couldn't make. I think it would be harder to come to grips

with the termination than it would be to just have and raise both babies. But, her choice.

[Fleshdancer]

2. I don't think I could do this either.

It's odd though. I think it's nuts when women try to bring a large group of multiples to full term (Octomom for example) but aborting a twin makes me uncomfortable. I need to think this through a little more.

Either way, it's not my decision to make. The woman in this article knows what she can and cannot handle.

[TwilightGardener]

3. I think they try to implant fewer embryos now, because of cases like octomom--

I am sure they want to avoid the necessity of having to reduce the number of fetuses. But man, it's just one more kid...and what if you have the one twin and there's something wrong with it, health or development-wise, will you think "oops, I aborted the wrong one"? Will you tell this child that it had a twin, but you decided not to have it? That's the sort of uncomfortable questions that would pop into my brain at 3 am, if I were this woman.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

13. How about...

you don't tell them that they had a twin? Oh wow, problem solved! Anyway, they didn't have a twin. They had a potential twin sibling.

[TwilightGardener]

14. As a mother myself, this is what would bother me about this situation. YMMV.

Nobody's making a big deal about it, here, either. Nobody is saying she doesn't have a right to do this.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

17. Well I'm a guy so I can't say that I know what it's like to give birth to a child

Still, as the father of two young children, I wouldn't have had a problem if my wife had chosen to do this in a similar situation. And I disagree that people here are not making a big deal about it. Some people in this thread are questioning her mental health and inferring that there must be something wrong with it, and then closing their posts by saying that it's her choice. That's pretty lame. They don't know anything about her.

[TwilightGardener]

18. Well, I am questioning her emotional health, yes--that she's worried about

not having enough love in her heart for two babies. I've never heard anyone say that before. That's just odd.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

25. What is the limit in your opinion?

If someone got pregnant with six embryos would you question the mother if she said she didn't have enough love for six children? Assume she already had two as well. I certainly wouldn't. While I agree with you that love is not a finite quantity, time and emotional investment certainly are.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Resources and love, two different things, and you know that.

I can't imagine deliberately putting myself into a situation that this woman has placed herself in-- and then being blessed with two fetuses, and then deciding, you know what? After all the money and effort, that's just one too many, one needs to go. She's trying very hard to engineer a perfect situation for herself, and I do not think her decisions sound healthy and well-adjusted. By putting her story out there, BTW, she's giving us the opportunity to say what we think about her and her choices.

[pipi_k]

26. I actually heard

my son say this when he and his wife were expecting their second child.

He was afraid he could not love a second child. Like he would have to "divide" it or something.

I just smiled and told him that everything would change when that second child was born.

He now knows that love isn't divided...it's multiplied. He is absolutely crazy about both his girls.

:)

[TwilightGardener]

30. Maybe that's a more common feeling among men--that they have a greater

reliance than the mother (who, of course, is already nurturing and carrying the baby) on actually seeing and holding and caring for the child to develop a strong bond. I also think there's that sense that you love the first one so much, what will it be like with the second one? Neither case of which really applies here, where she's just choosing one child at random to live. That would just be an awful decision, IMO.

[Gormy Cuss]

27. The recommendation on max # of embryos was in place when octomom was impregnated.

Her doctor has since been censured within his profession.

eta: in the OP's case, I wonder how much she was counseled about the very real possibility of multiples when they attempted to implant multiple embryos. It sounds as if she has rationalized the selective reduction in part because these aren't her biological embryos, but rather are a product she purchased. I hope that this attitude doesn't extend if she successfully carries to term.

[elehhhhna]

4. I'm totallyprochoice and could not do that to a healthy fetus.

it's too much. how could I ever look at the "lucky" one?

[CTyankee]

7. I know someone who did this. She already had a kid at home but had fertility

treatments to get pregnant and ended up with 3 embryos. She felt she had to abort one. She felt her obligation was with the others and the child she had already.

[XemaSab]

104. It seems to me like if she's that broke

she shouldn't have tried to have ONE baby, much less with fertility treatments.

This makes me very uncomfortable. I mean, since she's already pregnant, why not put the second one up for adoption?

[boston bean]

5. I read this in the NYT about a month ago.

[sammytko]

16. read it back then also

[laundry_queen]

6. Well it's her choice

but I think she's crazy. I don't get how someone could so desperately say she wanted a child, so much so that she'd go through IVF with a donor egg and then when she gets twins, thinks, "ooo, one too many, I didn't want THAT". Not to mention the huge risk that reducing lends to the surviving fetus. She's willing to risk this desperately wanted pregnancy because she didn't get the picture perfect pregnancy she wanted? I don't get it at all. And that she says she's worried about 'half' the love being directed towards each twin? Does she divide her love amongst her existing children? She sounds like a self-centered control freak. But hell, I support her right to her choice. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Yeah, that "half her love" thing told me she maybe wasn't emotionally

playing with a full deck. Love for one's children is not like dividing up a pie.

[Darth_Kitten]

81. Exactly.

n/t

[CTyankee]

73. You have to remember that she has other children to care for.

Those kids are here and now. The fetus is a "potential" person.

She had to make a moral choice. She chose to support the kids she had and one she could have. I know that is difficult to read about and I myself might have had a problem with it, BUT women are moral agents and can make these decisions on their own. That's the real point here.

[LWolf]

9. I have a hard time relating to her choices.

They are hers to make, of course.

I don't understand why someone who already has children would go through six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, and donor eggs to have another at the age of 45.

When my first husband got his vasectomy, one of our friends told me he thought it was a little premature, as young as we were. He asked, "What if you don't stay married? If you remarried, you might want to start another family." I just looked at him and said, "Regardless of our marital status, he has two incredible sons. Are you saying that if he moved on to another woman, they suddenly wouldn't be good enough any more? He'll have two sons to love and raise regardless of marital status." For the record, when the marriage did end, I got a tubal ligation before the divorce was final. I raised two incredible men. Their dad, until his death, loved them and often told people how grateful he was to me for raising them on my own, since he was unable to manage himself, let alone others.

I think the same thing applies here. What's wrong with the kids she's got?

Then, there's this: anyone who goes through that process knows that they could end up with multiple fetuses. Do you decide to abort extras before you even make them?

I am a supporter of reproductive choices. I don't relate at all to the choices made in this case.

:shrug:

[REP]

84. This. Said much more reasonably than I am capable of doing.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. This is what freedom of choice is all about.

All the posts I've read so far say they could not do what this woman is doing, but they agree it's her right.

This freedom allows people to make those uncomfortable choices. It allows them to live the way they choose...

It is extremely important.

[Bunny]

11. Nothing about this makes any sense, but it's her choice.

She sounds like a nitwit to me.

[sammytko]

19. Yep - she'll probably regret it later if she is even having a twinge of guilt now

Wonder why she just didn't stick to one embryo. Of course I never wanted kids, so don't know what that desire feels like.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

12. I don't see what the big deal is about this.

How is this any different than aborting a child with Down Syndrome? The mother thinks the baby will have a reduced quality of life in that case. The mother in this case thinks that she won't have enough time to devote to both children so she is keeping only one. It is a testament to advances in scientific and medical technology that she is able to produce two children through artificial means and also able to choose to keep only one. We should be thankful for that ability, even if we wouldn't choose to do such a thing ourseleves. We all enjoy the benefits of legalized abortion in the form of reduced crime from unwanted babies that were never born. I don't want to return to 1970s or 1980s levels of crime. Less future criminals is a good thing for everyone.

[TBF]

15. Ugh. This whole topic and the responses make me ill. nt

[TwilightGardener]

22. Curious, why do the responses make you ill?

[TBF]

34. I guess I just personally don't like abortion that much to start with -

although I guess I accept it as a medical procedure in the first trimester. Nobody's perfect and I understand mistakes, rapes, incest, etc happen. I still don't like the procedure but I can accept it under some conditions.

But this story is just beyond the pale in my view. This woman has older children and admits that their finances are not great. Then why on earth PAY to have embryos implanted, and then decide to abort one? I just can't come to grips with this story.

[PeaceNikki]

36. Did you read the whole piece or just the small snip from OP?

It's a lengthy article.

In any case, I, for one, am damn glad that the current laws of this country to not require that you or anyone else "like" or "justify" or "accept" the personal and medical decisions of others. These decision are up to women and their doctors and should forever remain that way. Lift ALL abortion restrictions in this country and to hell with anyone who looks down their nose at others. Don't like it? Don't have one; end of story.

[TBF]

39. I read the whole article - as I indicated to you below.

I guess my view on abortion has just changed since having children of my own. With my 2nd child I had a sonogram very early on (I was 39), and it was amazing to me how much there was to the embryo at 2-3 mos.

I'm still ok with it as a medical procedure early on, but to pay to get pregnant at 45 & then abort fetuses - I just can't come to terms with that. I'm sorry.

[PeaceNikki]

40. Then I suggest that you don't pay to get pregnant at 45 & then abort fetuses.

And let other women and their doctors do what is within THEIR moral and legal boundaries without restriction.

[TBF]

41. Yes, I accept that perhaps I need to rethink my opinon on any abortion.

I am willing to look at shades of gray, but if you are going to pin me to the wall and say "accept this crap or none at all" then I'd say no to abortions altogether.

[PeaceNikki]

43. And I say repeal ALL abortion laws. Every damn one.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/06/06/343745/-Repeal-All-Abortion-Laws

[tnlefty]

70. I was an infertility patient waaaaay before 45 and I was told that

if/when I got pregnant I would be at higher risk simply from being an infertility patient. That proved to be true.

My first thought about this is that after going through all of that, and being 45, that her choice had more to do with fear of not being able to carry a twin pregnancy to anywhere near term.

My single pregnancies were difficult and I was much younger than 45. I wouldn't have been trying to get pregnant at 45, but that's just me and I can't judge her for the choice that she made. Women do reduce multiples to increase the odds of pregnancy getting closer to term.

[Crunchy Frog]

102. I got pregnant at 45 through a frozen embryo transfer.

2 embryos transferred and 2 took. I never even considered aborting one of them. No, it wasn't a particularly easy pregnancy, and they were premature, but not catastrophically so; 3 weeks in the NICU.

I would not have been willing to go through a triplet pregnancy; which is why I wouldn't allow the transfer of more than 2 embryos. If I had been determined to only carry one baby, I would have insisted on a single embryo transfer.

I can't say that I find myself feeling terribly sympathetic with her choice.

[JanMichael]

23. What about the responses make you "ill?"

Several of the women here have made thoughtful, intelligent comments that are typical for them. Maybe you could elaborate.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

24. How about the fact that these thoughtful and intelligent women

don't personally know the woman that they are choosing to comment about. Many of the posters are questioning this lady's mental health, and I don't think that the posters are trained psychiatrists either.

[JanMichael]

63. ? what? what does that have to do with anything?

most of the ones I read were simply commenting on their personal feelings about how they would handle a situation such as this?

I still fail to see what your point is.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

64. My point is it's none of their fucking business

as to her personal motivations for doing it. Pro-choice means pro-choice. It doesn't mean oh I'll just criticize her for her choice while throwing in a line at the end about defending it.

[JanMichael]

66. oh, I see.

look, nice to have met you. Stay golden :)

[PeaceNikki]

68. Exactly. Choice is choice. There's no stipulation that the general public "understand" your fucking

REASONS for making reproductive choices. And the day there is, we're all fucking doomed.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

71. Bingo

Once you go down this road theres no rest stops for hundreds of miles. It's a decision between a woman and her doctor (and the father if she chooses to involve him). When some posters say that they could never do this it only serves to undermine abortion rights because then we are getting into a values debate -- that is fertile ground for Republicans. It should be a woman's choice up until viability -- no exceptions. This is what Roe said. The state only has an interest in fetuses that can live outside the womb without assistance.

[WinkyDink]

20. Why any more at all, at age 45? (Operative word = "more.")

[TBF]

21. That is the strangest thing -

I had my kids when I was in my late 30s (no fertility - and my cut off for trying was 40). It is hard enough being that much older than my kids, but I made my choices and had my career first. But if you already had older kids, why in the world pay money to have embryos implanted and then abort one? Just mind-boggling. This lady is nuts imho.

[Darth_Kitten]

83. Right. I can sympathize more with those having their first...

But she experienced parenthood, why did she just need one more? I don't know.

Some people need to learn to count their blessings.

[undeterred]

28. Would it be unthinkable to give birth to twins and put one up for adoption?

That would avoid taking the life of a child and provide a newborn for a couple who wanted to adopt.

[PeaceNikki]

31. Carrying twins to full term for a 45 year-old is dangerous.

[beac]

32. Getting pregnant at all at 45 is dangerous. I'm pro-choice, but I

have a REALLY hard time understanding why this woman was spending thousands on fertility treatments in the first place since she already had two children.

[PeaceNikki]

33. That's the awesome thing about choice - YOU don't have to understand HER decision.

[beac]

46. Don't presume to lecture me about what "choice" means.

I can support her choice and STILL think it is incredibly stupid and irresponsible to spend lots of money on a procedure that is statistically very likely to produce multiples if that was going to be a problem for her--- especially at at her age and with two other children already in the family.

I can support her right to choose without supporting the idiotic decisions she made to get her to that choice. THAT'S the great thing about choice!

[PeaceNikki]

48. lol, if you think THAT was anything resembling a "lecture", you're kinda dramatic.

Vive la différence and I am glad you support choice.

[beac]

52. Sorry, would "scold" have been a better word choice?

And characterizing "lecture" as dramatic is "kinda dramatic" in my book.

But at least we can agree on the right to choose even if we don't agree on vocabulary.

[PeaceNikki]

55. I like the part of the article that says: Society judges reproductive choices based on

the motives behind them. Think about the common reaction to a woman who aborts because contraception failed versus a woman (and her partner) who took no precautions at all. "It changes our judgment of the moral character of the individual making the abortion decision," says Bonnie Steinbock, a philosophy professor who is on the ethics committee of the ASRM. "In the first case, it wasn't her 'fault'; in the second, it was. It doesn't mean the careless person shouldn't have the right to an abortion, but it does mean we're going to have a very different reaction to that choice." Likewise, people may judge two-to-one reductions more harshly because the fertility treatment that yielded the pregnancy significantly increased the chance of multiples. "People may think, 'You brought this about yourself, so you should be willing to take some of the risk,'" Steinbock says.

...

In some ways, the reasons for reducing to a singleton are not so different from the decision to abort a pregnancy because prenatal tests reveal anomalies. In both cases, the pregnancies are wanted, but not when they entail unwanted complications – complications for the parents as much as for the child. Many studies show the vast majority of patients abort foetuses after prenatal tests reveal genetic conditions such as Down's syndrome that are not life-threatening. What drives that decision is not only concern over the quality of life for the future child, but also the emotional, financial or social difficulty for parents of having a child with extra needs. As with reducing two healthy foetuses to one, the underlying premise is the same: this is not what I want for my life.

This is what bothers me about discussions like this. Outside of reproductive choice, what other majorly life-changing personal medical decisions is society allowed to judge, restrict or legislate based on WHY the patient is making them? Can you think of any? I will not ever question the motives or seek to restrict women's choice. Not even when stories of "shock" and/or perceived "abuse" are being discussed.

[beac]

57. I guess that's where we differ. I think it's okay to support her choice and

still think she's got incredibly poor judgement.

Don't forget, she CHOSE to give an interview about this and, in doing so, gave a boatload of ammo to the anti-choice crowd-- who are unable to make the cognitive separation between their opinions and her rights.

I think it's fair to discuss something SHE chose to make public AND that could negatively impact the right to choose for ALL women.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

77. You are wrong

If you see my response to Nikki you will see that I agree with you that this woman made a poor choice in publishing this story. She did give ammo to the anti-choice crowd, but if you agree with them that this is poor judgement on her part, then you are not arguing the pro-choice position. If you judge women for their reproductive choices then you are part of the drive to criminalize motive. Why do you think so many Republicans support a "rape" exception? It isn't about life to them -- it is about punishing women for "bad" choices and "poor" judgment. Rape victims to them are GOOD people who through no fault of their own got pregnant, so THEY should be allowed to abort. Women whose contraception failed them or who simply forgot to take the pill one day are BAD people, and they should be forced to carry to term.

Don't play that game with them. The Republicans have already bought the referees at the game and they're playing in front of a stadium crowd of 70,000 fundies frothing at the mouth about irresponsible women who couldn't keep their legs closed. I've heard all of this shit before, and not lumping you in with them.

Still, when you say that she has poor judgment, you're basically arguing a similar position to a lot of those on the anti-choice side.

[defendandprotect]

96. If I may intrude ... I think you're presuming that the other poster is ....

"judging" the woman's decision to abort one fetus -- she's NOT.

She is discussing the poor judgment in entering into a process which invariably

ends up in MULTIPLE births -- when her age and personal family situation called

for a comfort zone of one birth.

[beac]

99. You ARE trying to "lump me in" by claiming I am in some way part of "criminalizing" motive.

The VERY IMPORTANT difference is I don't think I have any right to force her to do anything b/c I disagree with her.

Yes, it makes me DAMN MAD that she decided her need to "tell her story" (one that REALLY paints abortion in a bad light and is EXTREMELY hard to see in a sympathetic way) was more important than keeping abortion safe and legal for all. But if everyone on this thread was merely saying "More power to her"(as Nikki did above) how would THAT not play into the fundies game of "All liberals are irresponsible and celebrate irresponsibility."?

I'm afraid I can't agree with you that we will ever win the fight by saying that no one has the right to have opinions about the choices others make. To win, we need to get the anti-choice people to recognize that they are allowed to feel DAMN MAD that others choose abortion but they are not allowed to take away others' right to choose it.


Peace, please. We are all on the same side, after all, and all the arguing has really wrung me out. Feel free to reply if you need to, but I think I need to take a mental health break from this thread for now.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

74. What is going to be interesting is when the gay gene set is discovered

and fundies have to choose between their anti-choice and anti-gay bonafides. My hunch is that they will pick the former. And you know what, disgusting as some of us would view that to be, that's what we have to accept as a society that respects a woman's right to choose. With all due respect, it would have been better for this woman if she had just never spoken to the newspaper about this. It really is no one's business but her own. She chose to make it our business, and that's fine, but I don't think it really helps anyone. Just my $.02.

[XemaSab]

105. I think that some people in this thread don't think it's a moral choice at all

That's the bright line for a lot of people.

[Darth_Kitten]

82. It's dangerous for women at most any age....

Personally, I've knnown more 20 something than 40 something pregnant women with pregnancy problems.

[TBF]

35. Read the story - she has older children, feels that their finances are not great,

and yet chooses to pay money to be implanted with embryos. Then she decides to abort one.

[PeaceNikki]

37. More power to her.

[TBF]

38. Just wow.

Ok, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[undeterred]

44. Then why on earth is a fertility specialist implanting more than one

embryo in her in the first place?

[TwilightGardener]

45. To up the odds of at least one pregnancy taking hold.

[PeaceNikki]

47. Because that is how IVF is done. It's science and reducing multiple pregnancies in these cases

is legal and within this woman and her doctor's moral scope.

If your opinions differ, vive la différence!

[undeterred]

51. You just said it is dangerous to the woman to deliver more than

one baby at the age of 45. That's not a moral opinion, its a medical one. If its dangerous, why would any responsible doctor implant more than one embryo and know she would not be able to carry it?

Also, I've never heard that it was dangerous for a woman in her forties to deliver twins. In fact, its more common for women in their forties to conceive twins.

[PeaceNikki]

53. It's explained in the article linked in the OP.

[LeftyMom]

54. IVF cycles are expensive and the failure rate is high, so more than one embryo is transferred.

Lately the trend is to implant fewer embryos than in the past because success rates are raising and people want to reduce the risk of multiples, but that still means implanting 1-3 embryos per cycle in most cases- two appears to be the typical number. With a woman who has a very limited window of possible fertility due to impending menopause, the temptation to implant two or three and hope that one sticks is a very strong one, especially if she's got a limited budget and can't do $10K a pop IVF cycles until the cows come home.

[Crunchy Frog]

103. Not really all that dangerous. Speaking as someone who actually did it.

(Though only made it to 33 1/2 weeks, a few weeks shy of full term.) It wasn't easy, but it wasn't horrible either.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

72. The fetus is 14 weeks

Not even close to the point of viability. States can ban them with almost no exceptions after 24 weeks because that is generally considered the point of viability. Your post resembles the Republican talking points because you are essentially advocating that this woman serve as an incubator for her fetus for 3 more months.

[undeterred]

79. Well she's going to be doing that anyway, isn't she?

She can't very well bring just one baby to term and ignore the other, can she? Maybe she could charge the unwanted one incubator fees- like rent or something.

[LeftyMom]

89. There's a huge difference between a singleton and a twin pregnancy.

First, prematurity is almost certain in a twin pregnancy. With all of the risks that go along with that: stillbirth, poor lung development, long NICU stays, failure to thrive, developmental delays, learning and behavioral difficulties in later childhood...

Second, a twin pregnancy is much more difficult on the mother. She's almost certain to have a c-section, with the health risks that creates. Bedrest is a near certainty. I'm not sure how a woman with two existing kids is supposed to do weeks and weeks of bedrest. And that's assuming nothing goes wrong.

[undeterred]

100. Twins occur in nature.

They were not invented by the procedures of in vitro fertilization.

[LeftyMom]

109. Lots of things occur in nature that are risky,

or even doomed to failure.

[undeterred]

112. And pregancy is one of those things that humans still

do not have very precise control over, although we have much more than previous generations did.

10 years ago I worked on a high risk unit where multiple births were delivered (I was working on the computers) and there were a lot of very small, weak infants delivered that did not survive long or died at birth. Very sad.

[ljm2002]

42. This story does not make sense...

...from the article:

"She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment"...

and yet later it says

"She and her husband already had primary school-age children."

Something does not add up.

In any case, it's her choice.

[LeftyMom]

50. Secondary infertility. It happens.

:shrug:

[The Straight Story]

49. Your body, your choice - whether it abortion or other things (nt)

[loyalsister]

56. I give her credit for recognizing her limitations

If only more people made practical evaluations of their ability to parent there would be fewer abortions and less child abuse.

[LynneSin]

61. She should have made those evaluations before she spent all that money on fertility treatments

It's not like this woman woke up one day and found herself pregnant.

She and her partner spent thousands to try to conceive again even though they already had children, even though they knew at age 45 there was a big risk with any pregnancy and even though fertility treatments often lead to multiple births.

This story was published for one reason - for the anti-choice to use this as a 'Look how selfish pro-choice people are and why we need to ban abortion'.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a fictional couple created just to put such a wretched story out there.

[loyalsister]

65. I know a person who was in this position- only worse

There were complications with the pregnancy and one twin was draining resources from the other because it was having difficulty. There was no doubt that the one needing more resources would die. She chose not to abort and they were both born premature. One died and the other has had developmental problems.
That is a perfect analogy to the situation that this woman was in. If one drains resources whether physical or emotional, they both suffer.
They may have spent their savings on those treatments. Now they will get by on their combined incomes and want to try to save again. The childcare expenses not spent on a second child could make a decent contribution to that.
There are many women who have abortions because they already have a child or children to care for. It is not understood as a personal issue and personal choice if we concern ourselves with political ramifications or her personal choice.

[treestar]

58. I think she had the right to decide that

but I would have given up the one for adoption. That just seems like a classic case for it - it's one pregnancy - have them both and let someone else have one. How to pick seems like an awful decision. Come to think of it, I'd suck it up and have the two. Just don't see how that decision can be made. If they were talking about greater multiples with the risk of disability, that's make it an easier question.

[Brickbat]

59. It's her choice. Putting one up for adoption seems terribly cruel to me.

[LynneSin]

60. It's stories like this created to give pro-choice people a bad image

I'm totally 100% pro-choice but if this family was so worried about the cost and effort of raising more children then why did they spend all that money on fertility planning ESPECIALLY since they already had children.

Sorry but this family comes across as selfish .

[REP]

85. Hard cases make for bad laws; this is an example (if this story is true)

Though I think this story, if true, speaks more to a need for some sort of screening in the assisted fertility field (already has children but wants a baby in middle age - but only one - and why?) than abortion, it is one of those extreme examples that does not justify outlawing either fertility treatments nor abortion, except perhaps to the simple-minded.

[LynneSin]

62. I question if this story is real - it reaks of a plant to make pro-choice side look bad

Really?

A woman who is 45 years old and already has several children decided to ungo fertility treatment that has a high rate of multiple births. Then claims the family doesn't have enough money or love to raise 2 kids even though they have several kids and could afford fertility treatment.

This is an anti-choice wet dream story. I suspect it's not real

[TBF]

67. I actually wondered that as well -

such a crazy story.

[Nye Bevan]

69. The Guardian is generally a very reliable source.

The story is very likely true.

And at 14 weeks, it's simply a collection of cells, not a human life. Anyone who does not support this woman 100% is not truly pro-choice.

[LynneSin]

115. Don't even go down that path

I call this woman out not because she had an abortion but she would go thru all of that pain and suffering for 6 years and then do it.

It's like spending countless hours growing the perfect garden only to toss all the veggies into a dumpster afterwards. I mean why bother doing it at all if I wasn't going to eat them - that's alot of time and money wasted on something I would never use. Or why not give them away if I don't want them. Sure they are my veggies and I can do what I want with it but it's still stupid to throw them away if I knew ahead of time that my work would create vegetables and I knew I would never eat them.

It's one thing to call oneself pro-choice and I am that 100%. But I recognize stupidity when I see and I call it out when I see it. I also call a planted story when I see it too. That store was written to make pro-choicers look bad, simple as that.

And I blame the doctor just as much. If the doctor knew the woman only wanted one child he should have only planted one egg at a time. This procedure is very common that multiple births happen. I understand and respect selective harvesting but that's for extreme cases when a large number fertilize and would endanger the birth of any viable babies or even the mother's life (Octomom should have thinned the heard). But this family knew the only wanted one - then give them what they want - one egg at a time.

[LisaL]

98. It is a bizarre story.

Six years of infertility treatments and then she decides to terminate one of the twins? I mean it is her decision, but the story is bizarre.

[Blasphemer]

75. There was a story years ago about a woman who made a similar decision

In her case it was triplets and I recall a lot of negativity towards her because it seemed to be an issue of incovenience to her very yuppy-fied life. As someone who is 100% pro-choice, I don't think it's for me to judge the reasons behind someone else's decision. While a person may choose to share their decision with family, friends or the world-at-large, ultimately it's between a woman and her doctor(s). I'm more concerned with how the children that are brought into the world are treated than I am about the reasons a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy.

[tammywammy]

78. I think this is the article you're thinking of

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/magazine/18LIVES.html?pagewanted=print&position=


When One Is Enough
I grew up in a working-class family in Pennsylvania not knowing my father. I have never missed not having him. I firmly believe that, but for much of my life I felt that what I probably would have gained was economic security and with that societal security. Growing up with a single mother, I was always buying into the myth that I was going to be seduced in the back of a pickup truck and become pregnant when I was 16. I had friends when I was in school who were helping to rear nieces and nephews, because their siblings, who were not much older, were having babies. I had friends from all over the class spectrum: I saw the nieces and nephews on the one hand and country-club memberships and station wagons on the other. I felt I was in the middle. I had this fear: What would it take for me to just slip?

Now I'm 34. My boyfriend, Peter, and I have been together three years. I'm old enough to presume that I wasn't going to have an easy time becoming pregnant. I was tired of being on the pill, because it made me moody. Before I went off it, Peter and I talked about what would happen if I became pregnant, and we both agreed that we would have the child.

I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician. The doctor had just finished telling me I was going to have a low-risk pregnancy. She turned on the sonogram machine. There was a long pause, then she said, ''Are you sure you didn't take fertility drugs?'' I said, ''I'm positive.'' Peter and I were very shocked when she said there were three. ''You know, this changes everything,'' she said. ''You'll have to see a specialist.''

My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?

I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ''Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?'' The obstetrician wasn't an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.
-snip-

[Blasphemer]

80. Yes, I think that's the one. Thanks for finding it! nt

[InvisibleTouch]

76. I wonder why she needed even one more...

...at that age, and already having kids, and self-admittedly being short on resources to support the family. Perhaps if she hadn't blown all the money on artificial fertility treatments, she wouldn't have had to worry about how to be a good parent to her already existing kids, let alone getting herself into this dilemma. People have the right to make stupid choices, of course, but that doesn't mean they're anything other than stupid. Sorry, I don't have any sympathy for this.

[mnhtnbb]

87. +++

[LeftyMom]

88. Maybe she just knows her limits?

Obviously she's not broke, one round of IVF runs about $10K, and insurance won't pay for it. I could put together the time, energy and money it took to raise another kid if I wanted, but I don't think I could manage two more.

Further, twin births are much more likely to be born premature, which hugely raises the risks for health problems in infancy, and learning and behavioral difficulties later in life. So it's not like she's just wimping out on changing double diapers and missing sleep or something, she's likely making the choice between raising three healthy, normal kids, or two healthy and two special needs kids. That's a huge difference in commitment, and it shouldn't be entered into flippantly.

[InvisibleTouch]

90. I'm not criticizing her decision to abort one.

I'm criticizing her decision to go through the gyrations to have even one, at her age and in her circumstances. It's simply stupid to me. The risks of fertility treatment at her age are likely to bring health problems for her and for the remaining fetus - and what kind of mother would she be to her already-existing kids then?

Doesn't sound like someone who knows her limits. Sounds like someone who's hoping another baby will work some kind of missing miracle in her life.

Having said that, if she really was crazy-desperate to have another child, she would have done better to adopt one. The costs probably would have been comparable, without the accompanying health risks to herself and child.

[LeftyMom]

92. Having a baby in one's forties isn't exactly unheard of.

My grandmother did it three times, and back then there certainly wasn't fertility treatment. She just married a devout Catholic when she was in her late thirties and well... babies happened. Frequently. Her older kids were teenagers (her first husband died.) I hate to imagine what people on this website would have thought of her, a woman with three little babies and two kids moving out and getting married. They all came out fine, she was healthy and happy for another half century.

Maybe she just likes kids and wants one more? She can have one, so she is. Good for her.

[InvisibleTouch]

94. If, however, she *had* to undergo artificial treatments to get pregnant...

...then the body is telling her the time is past, IMO. Nature generally knows best. Flying in the face of that, I think is warped and incomprehensible, especially when she already has kids and there are other options available. But maybe that's just me. I've never felt the urge to have a baby of my own, so I cannot relate. If by some bizarre twist of fate I find myself 45 years old and feeling like I missed out on something, I would most assuredly adopt.

This woman can do what she wants, of course, and I'd not try to force her to do otherwise (that's the whole gist of being pro-choice, after all). But I will still maintain my opinion of it.

[LeftyMom]

95. I can't really relate, but some people with one or more kids really want another.

They don't feel like their family is complete yet, or they just like kids and want to add to the family. That's totally an okay feeling to have and to act on. As far as having a baby at 45, since she used donor eggs she eliminated many of the significant risks to the child- in that respect getting pregnant "naturally" would have been riskier because of very high risks of certain developmental disabilities. Since donor eggs come from women under 30, that risk was minimized.

[LisaL]

110. I am sorry but using that logic there is no point of treating a diseased

person, since it's nature way of telling who lives and who dies? It's absurd.

[Sheepshank]

114. with all due respect......your first sentence is silly

"...then the body is telling her the time is past, IMO. Nature generally knows best. "

If we were to go by what nature dictates, we'd quit giving flu shots, performing appendectomies and knee replacements, and cease all cancer treatments and dialysis. Thank god, that we can and do manipulate the poor hand that nature can dole out. I'm wondering if you really agree with idea that when nature goes wrong we should let her run with it and just lay down and suffer or die?

Of course not.

MOST women going through infertility treatment are not over the age of 40. They go through infertility treatment because nature has failed them. For most women going through infertility treatments, the process of reproduction is so enviably normal and Natal for everyone else. They simply want to have those same reproductive options that fertile women with well working bodies enjoy. They want to choose to have or not have kids. And they chose to try and have a child. Science is helping fix that failure of nature.

[XemaSab]

107. If money were no object

and you could stay home all day, could you manage two more?

Your situation and the situation of the yuppie in the article sound very different.

[LeftyMom]

111. I don't honestly think I could manage two babies/toddlers at once unless I could afford a nanny.

I do NOT handle sleep deprivation well. That's the main reason I stopped at one.

edit: I couldn't do it well and happily, I mean. I could keep everybody fed and washed and out of the street, but I think I'd wind up needing medicated.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

86. .

[catrose]

91. I had a friend in a similar situation

Older mother, fertility treatment resulting in multiple foetuses. Only when she refused to terminate any of them, her doctor said he had an ethical problem with that. But he consulted another doctor, who said there was no way a 38 year old mother would carry multiples to term. Sure enough, Patsy had one fine healthy baby. So I wonder why Jenny's doctor was so anxious to reduce--and I hope she can carry the one she has left to term.

[defendandprotect]

93. Hard to understand ... if there's one sure thing about "infertility" treatments it's MULTIPLE

births --

Also don't much understand people who already have children wanting to go thru this?

And, in many ways, don't these infertility manipulations keep many parents who might

adopt from doing so?

[Mimosa]

97. Who's business is this other than the family's? n/t

[joshcryer]

101. Her choice.

It's a bundle of cells.

Getting worked up about a bundle of cells is like weeping when that wart you had on your ass for 20 years is excised and you can finally take a shit in peace.

[lbrtbell]

106. If you're not financially secure and you think you're too old

How come you're wasting all this money, trying to get pregnant?

I'm a staunch supporter of abortion rights, but even I draw the line here. Abortion is there for women who are financially, emotionally, or physically unable to deal with a pregnancy, not as a tool to create a designer pregnancy.

And here's what really made me sick: "Even the twins would be robbed because, at best, she could give each one only half of her attention and, she feared, only half of her love."

Who in their right mind thinks they can't love all their children equally? When she gives birth to this baby, will one of her older children have to do without, because Mommy only has the capability to love a set number of kids?

This is one instance I think abortion should either be mandatory, or else these poor kids should be taken away from this couple before they grow up to be extremely damaged adults. This woman, and anyone who indulges her insanity, needs psychiatric help.

[Nye Bevan]

108. It's her money. Her body. Her kids. Her love. Her mental state.

What part of "pro-choice" do you not understand?

[LynneSin]

116. That's why I think the story is a fake

or some type of plant.

Anti-choice people eat this stuff up like cotton candy.

[McCamy Taylor]

113. If they can not tell anyone, that makes me think that they feel guilty. If they feel guilty, maybe

they should not have done it. Maybe their arms were twisted.

I worry that their doctor encouraged it so that the pregnancy would have a better outcome, lowering his or her chance of getting sued for the complications that come from delivering twins.